Legal Opinion
Apple, Inc. v. Motorola, Inc.
District Court, N.D. Illinois
Decided June 22, 2012No. 1:11-cv-08540PublishedCited by 12 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion and Order of June 22, 2012
POSNER, Circuit Judge.
In my opinion and order of May 22, following the Daubert hearing held on the 16th, I ruled that proposed testimony by three of the parties’ damages experts (one for Apple and two for Motorola) was inadmissible. Apple, Inc. v. Motorola, Inc., No. 1:11-cv-8540, 2012 WL 1959560 (N.D.Ill. May 22, 2012); see Fed.R.Evid. 702, 703. This ruling precipitated motions by both parties for summary judgment with respect to their opponents’ damages claims, followed by motions for summary judgment directed at each other’s injunction claims as well.…
2Cases cited54 opinions
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. GreenSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
- Texas Department of Community Affairs v. BurdineSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
- Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 2000
- Franchise Tax Bd. of Cal. v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust for Southern Cal.Supreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Farrar v. HobbySupreme Court of the United States · 1992
49 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Apple Inc. v. Motorola, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2014
- Microsoft Corporation v. Motorola, IncCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2012
- Microsoft Corp. v. Motorola, Inc.District Court, W.D. Washington · 2013
- Apple, Inc. v. Motorola Mobility, Inc.District Court, W.D. Wisconsin · 2012
- Microsoft Corp. v. Motorola, Inc.District Court, W.D. Washington · 2012
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.